Archive for the ‘Christians & Culture’ Category

The Restoring Honor Rally: A Reflection

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

I wasn’t able to attend the Restoring Honor Rally in D.C. last Saturday, but I know a couple of people who did. They were deeply impressed by what they experienced. The crowd easily exceeded expectations, with estimates running as low as 300,000 [how's that for a "low"?] up to more than 500,000. The central stage was the Lincoln Memorial.

In this picture, you get only some idea of the size of the crowd. A bird’s-eye view provides a better perspective:

That’s the Lincoln Memorial in the distance. Up close is the WWII Memorial. The crowd filled the entire space between the two, and even went further back than this picture shows, all the way to the Washington Monument.

Impressive, to say the least.

What inspired people to make this journey? Well, there certainly were some attractions. For one, Sarah Palin was a key speaker, and undoubtedly a drawing card for many. She, and all the other speakers, set aside partisan politics for the day and spoke instead about honoring those who have served in the military, remembering another speech at this spot in 1963—”I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther King—and calling for a return to faith in God.

Of course, the main organizer for this rally, Glenn Beck, was on hand as well. His stated goal was to bring together people of all faiths for a common purpose, what he and others termed a spiritual revival.

This is where it gets controversial. Before going any further, let me say that I am in complete agreement that a spiritual revival is essential to bring this country back from the brink of an untold disaster. I understand Beck’s desire and support him in that quest. The real question is whether there can be a genuine spiritual renewal if Jesus Christ is not central to it.

I have watched Beck’s television program on a consistent basis. I applaud most of what I see. He has provided a valuable service in exposing the roots of progressivism, in upholding the authority of the Constitution and the rule of law, and in telling people that faith in God is the most significant factor for any restoration of the Founding principles. Building a coalition of groups who have that same vision is a good thing. Therefore, I do support the intent of the rally and I know that it was a force for good in the country.

The key, though, is whether this movement, as it goes forward, is going to be a Christian-based endeavor. Beck is a Mormon. I have some knowledge of Mormon theology, and it is decidedly not Christian. I know it is politically incorrect to say such a thing. I can never now run for office. That’s okay—I never planned to do so. The Mormon concept of the nature of God and Jesus is not compatible with orthodox Christianity. The theology of salvation for Mormons is not the same as the Christian explanation.

Now, as I’ve listened to Beck, I’ve wondered just how much he really understands Mormonism because his words, at least as he explains his view of salvation, sound as orthodox as any Christian’s. I can safely let God be the judge of his heart. However, a clear line does need to be drawn between what is definitively, uniquely Christian and that which is not.

In the political world, as I’ve noted, coalitions need to be formed. I can unite with Mormons, Jews, and anyone else who wants to see the same political result as I do. But a government is not the church. Salvation will never emanate from any government. The message of individual salvation remains in the Christian faith, which proclaims that Jesus is the only way, truth, and life.

I’ve read some critiques of the rally that have been rather censorious of it due to its mixed leadership—the attempt to meld all religious beliefs into one. I understand that. However, we should keep in mind that the movement, such as it is, does promote basic Biblical attitudes and principles, even if some in the movement are not personally Christian. Anything that nudges us closer to the truth is welcome.

When I teach about the American Founding, I make it clear that not everyone was a Christian at that time, yet nearly everyone operated on a consensus that was formed from the Biblical worldview. We could be seeing that same development today.

I think it is highly likely that the majority of those who attended the Restoring Honor Rally did so as proponents of the Biblical worldview. If the rank and file is made up of that type, there is hope for our future. We certainly could do worse than return to the status of the Founding, where even those who were not Christians still understood the world through the Christian prism.

Therefore, I urge my Christian brethren not to be too critical at this point. Let’s see where this leads. God works through His people, but He also works through those who don’t always realize He is doing so.

Hate Speech or Truthspeaking?

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

In the past few days, I’ve commented on the controversial topics of Islam and homosexuality. I’m certain that some readers, at least in their minds, will accuse me of hate speech. Now there’s a term that is long overdue for retirement. If you deign to say anything negative about specific individuals or groups, you can almost be assured of fostering “hate speech.”

I’m not about hate. Unlike some political commentators, though, I have a deep conviction of truth based upon Biblical principles. I see the Bible as the fount of all other truths that emanate from its basic foundations. As a result, I believe firmly that there is only one way to a relationship with God—through faith in the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ. That means all other “ways” are false. Therefore, I believe that Islam is a false religion.

Does that make me a hater?

No, it simply spurs me on to teach what I believe to be true so that those who are caught up in a falsehood can be set free from it. Islam as a worldview and a religious system I reject; Muslims as individuals are potential children of God—He loves them and continues to reach out to them. But the path to Him comes only through Christ. Speaking the truth is not hate speech, and there are many former Muslims who would agree with me because they have now received a new life through Christ.

I’m also a historian. I know about American history and how this nation began. I understand the roots of our values and political system, and there is not much doubt that Islam had nothing to do with either. That’s not what some people would have us believe.

Islam’s mark on American history has been almost entirely negative. There are some Muslim leaders who would rejoice at a total overhaul of our government and culture by the installation of sharia law.

They will use the freedom of religion that we all respect to create a new America in their own image. If they are ever successful, America will be no more. If I don’t speak out about that danger, I believe I’m being unfaithful to God’s truth.

With regard to the homosexual issue and same-sex marriage, I also plead guilty of wanting to disseminate truth. As I’ve said time and again, I don’t hate those who are caught in the sin of homosexuality; rather, I want to see them set free. What I do stand against is the political agenda that seeks to normalize what the Scripture clearly calls sinful behavior.

Judge Vaughn Walker’s recent decision that opened the door for same-sex marriage would, in my view, destroy what is left of the moral fabric of our society. Many conservatives/libertarians disagree with this, but they are blinded to the reality of it. Walker’s decision has the beginnings of the criminalization of Christian beliefs. Here’s what part of his decision declared:

Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

That is one step away from the prosecution of anyone who publicly says homosexuality is sinful. What a chilling effect that would have on the pulpits in America. How many Christians would be willing to be prosecuted for speaking the truth?

For those who question why we should be concerned about the same-sex marriage issue, and whether government should even have a say in what constitutes marriage, I recommend reading this article by Mike Farris, a constitutional lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court. I know Mike, and I trust his analysis. He clearly lays out the problems that will arise if we, as a society, simply let any definition of marriage become the norm.

These are weighty issues. Christians have a responsibility to tackle them, speaking the truth in love. I will not shirk that responsibility.

Is This Our Future?

Monday, August 16th, 2010

As the Obama administration pushes for this country to become more like a socialist European country, it might be fitting to look at what happens in those countries. The example used most often is economics, but I’d like to focus on something else this time.

Let’s take Sweden, for instance. I’ve been to Sweden, and I enjoyed my visit [eleven years ago]. I loved the historical sites in particular. I certainly have nothing against the Swedish people. In fact, there are some I’m very concerned for right now—those who are trying to homeschool their children.

A draconian new law was passed just over a month ago that practically wipes out all homeschooling in this country. The impetus behind the law is a combination of an anti-religious philosophy and socialism [the two naturally go together because the state replaces God in this system].

Let me share the details from a story in the Washington Times:

The Swedish Liberal Party pushed a new 1,500-page schooling law through last month one paragraph of which will make home schooling as an expression of religion or philosophy effectively impossible for Swedish families, other than in “exceptional circumstances” such as health issues or distance from a public school. The law also severely restricts religious practice in Sweden’s “confessional” schools.

Sweden’s officials defend the home-school ban, which takes effect next July, saying home schooling is unnecessary since the state provides a “comprehensive and objective” education.

Notice the animosity toward religious teaching. Then notice how the state will provide what it calls an “objective” education. What is really meant here is an education divorced from any concept of divine truth. The confessional schools mentioned above are those connected to a church; they are now required to use the same curriculum as the state schools. What that signifies, in effect, is that they are to be no different than the state schools. Christian education? Not allowed.

Here’s a statistic that reveals how Sweden got to this place: only 1% of the population attends church.

The overwhelmingly secular nature of Sweden has given rise to a socialist faith—man must believe in something. When a vacuum occurs, a new god takes the place of the one true God. That new god is the state.

The Times article continues,

Jonas Himmelstrand, president of the Swedish home-schooling organization Rohus, said his family is currently fighting in court for the right to home-school their own children. He said that Sweden’s government is not based on a constitution and inalienable rights, but has always been quite socialist.

The Swedish government, he said, fears anything they perceive as “different,” and they particularly fear parents teaching their kids something different than public schools.

“There’s not even a tradition of traditional human rights. There is a tradition of the state having rights,” said Mr. Himmelstrand.

The United States, by contrast, has a Constitution based on inalienable rights given by God. There is a blatant attempt to change that and turn this nation into a copy of Sweden and other European countries.

We need to be aware of this attempt. What is that cliché? “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Fortunately, the past year and a half has led to a reawakening of sorts. A growing number of Americans are thinking once again about the founding principles and the limits on government. The future is not yet fixed. We don’t have to follow the European socialist model. But it’s going to take some extra vigilance.

The Message That Must Be Spoken

Saturday, August 14th, 2010

The homosexual advancement in our society is distressing to me. Now I know not everyone who reads this will agree, but I believe it foreshadows a shift in culture from which we may never recover. The problem goes beyond the same-sex marriage issue—that’s simply the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The only reason we are now debating same-sex marriage is because we have come to a place where traditional morality based on the Judeo-Christian belief system has nearly been destroyed.

That may sound like an extreme statement, and I hope I’m wrong about this. However, once we changed the concept of rule of law and the original intent of the Constitution, we opened the door for all kinds of aberrations.

Thus far, the only thing standing in the way of full acceptance of this “lifestyle” is the possibility of the Supreme Court remaining faithful to the Constitution. There are some giants of legal understanding who are still on the Court. They have been joined by others, though, who are not of the same stature:

Frankly, it never should have come to this—having to hope for temporal salvation from a court. As I’ve said numerous times, I expect the mainstream of worldly thinking to cave on the issue, but the key is whether Christians remain firm in the truths of Scripture. The reason we are where we are, I believe, is due to Christians wavering on this basic truth: homosexuality is a sin.

Few are willing to say that anymore; it leads to rancor and discord. Too few are willing to stand alone for truth when the rest of society is telling them to change their views. No one relishes being called a bigot [that word, and its sister, "racist," dominate our discourse]. But it’s not bigoted to speak truth. Neither is it bigoted to point people to the way out of their sin. To do so is to lead them into freedom. The apostle Paul made it clear:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

That’s the message that needs to resound. It calls a sin a sin, yet also shows that every sin can be forgiven and new life can result. Who will speak this message? Who will be faithful to the calling?

The Blindness of Those Who Will Not See

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Last week, President Obama finally got around to criticizing Islamic extremists, after a year and a half of avoiding such descriptions. Yet, as always, there is a proviso—it seems their real crime is that they are racists. You see, they don’t like Africans.

Huh? Let’s be serious. They don’t like anyone outside of their own self-defined ideology. There’s nothing specifically anti-African about Al Qaeda. In fact, some of those Islamic extremists are African.

What to make of this? Obama just can’t seem to take off his blinders. It’s not because he is incapable of seeing the truth; it’s that he chooses not to see it because it contradicts his own ideology.

Someday, we’ll finally get around to the trial of Nidal Hasan, who went on that shooting rampage at Ft. Hood. Will the blindness dissipate at that trial?

This kind of blindness has one source, although some will argue with me over this. I go to the New Testament for this insight:

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. … For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. [2 Corinthians 4:3-4, 6]

That’s the only solution for this blindness.

The Real Victim of Racism

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

So the NAACP has voted to condemn the Tea Party for its racism? Where did they find that racism? Some will point to the infamous “walk” by Democratic leaders from their House office building to the Capitol when some of them claimed to hear racist remarks from the crowd—remarks that no one else heard, that were never picked up by any microphone or in any video.

When you want to believe something, you just will, regardless of the facts.

Deroy Murdock, a black commentator who has participated in Tea Party rallies, had this to say in National Review yesterday:

The NAACP today is expected to adopt a resolution denouncing the alleged “racism” of the tea-party movement. Presumably this is the same tea party that has expressed its “bigotry” by repeatedly showcasing black conservative and libertarian speakers at its rallies, including, among others, yours truly, Deneen Borelli, Niger Innis, Mychal Massie, Kevin Martin, Bob Parks, and David Webb (who leads New York’s tea party). The tea-party movement focuses on cutting taxes, spending, and government debt. Promoting fiscal responsibility is neither black nor white. It’s green.

Rather than peddling lies, the NAACP should deploy such credibility as it may possess to denounce the New Black Panther Party. The NBPP is as loud, vocal, and unvarnished a pack of racists as exists in this country.

It’s not just the NAACP that is ignoring the New Black Panther Party. The media, as I’ve noted previously, seems to be missing this story as well—you know, the one where one of the leaders tells people to kill “crackers” and their babies.

There is one very distinguished victim in this whole affair:

Will we ever see the return of real justice while this administration remains in office?

Based on the evidence, it’s not looking hopeful. Christians, though, see beyond what is currently happening and work and pray for true change. There is always hope if there are faithful people who still believe in a God of justice and the bedrock constitutionalism of the rule of law. It’s not time for despair; it’s time to get to work.

Issues: No Dichotomy

Saturday, July 10th, 2010

The issue that first got many evangelicals involved in politics was abortion. After that, it was a threat to private schools from the IRS. Those were both in the 1970s. As the 1980s progressed, so did the “gay rights” agenda. That has increasingly received attention.

All of these are sometimes categorized as the “social issues.” Commentators often talk about those being the hot-button issues for evangelicals because they are focused on problems of morality. I cannot argue with that. They deserve our concern.

I would like to note, though, that we sometimes divide these issues into artificial compartments. In my view, all issues come back to some aspect of morality, and they all affect our society. The division that is usually made is between the moral concerns and the economic concerns, but stop and think for a minute: how can we divorce economics from morality?

How money is spent is a moral issue. How much we spend has to do with morality as well. If we go into massive debt, how is that not a matter of right and wrong?

If you haven’t done so yet, I encourage you to reorient your thinking and realize that there really is no division. Citizens—and particularly Christian citizens—should see our national concerns as interconnected. In the same way as there should be no dichotomy between sacred and secular [God is the author of all knowledge and gave man the ability to think and create], neither is there a dichotomy between morality and economics or government structure or any other issue one might raise.

Let’s be renewed in our minds. Let’s see the whole rather than the parts in isolation.

It Matters How You Get There

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

I’ve enjoyed contributing posts to the Big Government site. Through those, I have made a number of pleasant contacts with readers who have sent me e-mails. It’s also gratifying to write on people and issues that I consider significant.

I’ve noticed some trends in the comments on the site to my posts. First, I seem to draw out atheists. Now, I’ve hardly given an altar call; it seems all one needs to do is just mention God in a positive vein and venom will spew forth. A couple of comments were so obscene that the administrator had to remove them.

This experience has reemphasized to me that the coalition of people who want to reduce the size of government and get it back within its constitutional boundaries includes some who are motivated more by anger than anything else. Now, they are hardly the majority, but their presence and the extreme language they sometimes use is more of a detriment than an aid to the cause.

Another observation is that there are those who claim to be Christians and yet believe things that are antithetical to basic Christian faith. Again, I’m not surprised by this, but every time it rears its head, it is disappointing.

A case in point is my latest post, which dared to include a criticism of philosopher Ayn Rand. Actually, I was defending Whittaker Chambers’s critique of one of her novels, Atlas Shrugged. More than one commenter saw no problem uniting her philosophy with Christianity. The main reason for this is that she comes out on the side of the free market—as do I.

Yet Rand’s path for getting to this free-market position is not one that is compatible with Christian faith. First, Rand was an atheist. She loathed the idea of God. As an adherent of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, she favored the idea of a race of supermen who would transcend traditional morality and create their own right and wrong. She also shared with Nietzsche his disdain for Christianity, which she called “the best kindergarten of communism possible.” Christian ethics, she said, were destructive of the self, making life “flat, gray, empty, lacking all beauty, all fire, all enthusiasm, all meaning, all creative urge.” She called for an ethic of selfishness instead.

Now, self-interest is one thing: I am to take care of that which is my own first; I am to give priority to family, etc. But that’s not the same thing as selfishness, which is the dethronement of God and the enthronement of oneself as god. In her personal life, she was sexually promiscuous and dictatorial in her manner. One biographer says “she was vituperative, without humor, and increasingly Stalinist in her behavior as she aged … in the jealous demands she exercised over those who formed what was in effect her cult.”

The word “cult” seems appropriate. Some of those who follow Rand’s teachings are devoted to her in a way that comes close to cult-like worship.

Rand may have been in favor of capitalism, but it really does matter how one arrives there. I do so on the basis of Biblical principles, not through an ethic of selfishness.

If you didn’t have the opportunity to read my post in Big Government, you can find it here:

http://biggovernment.com/asnyder/2010/07/03/mr-beck-meet-mr-chambers/

I will continue to stand for Biblical principles as the basis for my analysis of our culture and our public policies. I hope to help others think things through on that basis as well.

Is Patriotism Christian?

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

As I sat in church on Sunday, singing songs that melded the spiritual with the patriotic, and applauding members of the military who had fought to keep America free, I contemplated more than ever the distinction between this world and the next.

There are some Christians who feel no loyalty to any country. They emphasize verses such as the one in the book of Hebrews, chapter eleven, which says of those who had been faithful to God yet never saw the fulfillment of all His promises on earth, “They admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. … They were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.”

As a Christian, I take those verses to heart as well. Everything of which I am a part in this world is temporary. My ultimate destination is beyond any earthly nation. I agree with that assertion.

Some, though, will take it to mean that if this is temporary, then it is inconsequential. That is a leap in logic that is not valid. What we experience now may be temporary, but it is nevertheless real; it may be temporary, but God still demands our all in ensuring that righteousness prevails in the here and now.  What I do now has eternal ramifications; the eternity into which I will enter one day will be an extension of what started here. The character I develop now will go with me into that eternity.

One of America’s founders, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, understood these priorities very well. In a document he wrote arguing for liberty of conscience with respect to religious beliefs [as opposed to the state telling people which church they should attend], he said this:

Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

Madison is clear in this statement that our first responsibility is to God, and we are citizens of His country above all others. Yet that does not negate the reality of citizenship in our earthly country. We simply need to keep our priorities straight.

I have usually shied away from the word “patriotism.” That may seem strange to some of you who know how devoted I am to the Constitution and the rule of law. My concern is that what we call patriotism be more than just an emotional attachment to a physical place on this globe. Instead, we need to concentrate on the principles that form the basis for a God-honoring patriotism.

When the United States government and its culture swerve away from God’s principles, it is harder for me to “feel” that patriotism. I admit that this year it was harder than ever due to the policies the nation is currently following. Yet my God-honoring patriotism inspires me to do whatever I can to reverse these policies and to challenge that which is dominant in the culture that is unchristian.

This is what the Lord has called all Christians to do. That’s what Jesus meant by being salt and light. I will not curse the darkness [although I will point out quite clearly where it exists]; I will instead keep pointing to the Truth that can set all men free from the sins that bind them. I will do so even if I am the only one doing it. It’s nice to know, however, that I am not alone.

Jesus says to all Christians,

You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Supreme Decisions

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

This seems to be Supreme Court week. First, we have the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, then two decisions are handed down by the Court that have significant ramifications, one for good, the other just the opposite.

The good: the Second Amendment has survived the scrutiny of the Court—how nice of them to decide it’s really there. By a slim 5-4 decision, the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms applies to states and cities, too, thereby overturning a Chicago ordinance that tried to prohibit the right of self-defense by carrying a firearm.

Now, I’m no gun nut. I’ve never owned a gun, and I’ve only shot guns one time—at an NRA range. I have to say I enjoyed it, and was a much better shot than I expected I would be. All that to say, I’ve never had much experience along that line, but that doesn’t matter. It’s a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and should not be abridged. There are definitely benefits that come from gun ownership:

As some commentators have noted, though, there is a downside to this: the fact that the vote was only 5-4 shows how far we have strayed from written guarantees in the Constitution. Think about it—four justices on the Supreme Court were willing to say this right does not exist nationwide.

There was one bit of hypocrisy on display in this decision as well. Sonia Sotomayor voted with the minority after telling senators in her confirmation hearings that the right to bear arms was “settled law.” Apparently, she wanted to unsettle it. Again, this shows how much credence we can give to what nominees to the Court say during their hearings. The same applies to the Kagan hearings going on currently.

That decision was positive, but the other decision was disturbing. A Christian group at a California university was denied funds as a student group because it had as its requirements that individuals wanting to be part of the organization had to adhere to basic Biblical tenets, which included standing firm on the Biblical belief that homosexuality is not acceptable. Discriminatory, the university said. And the Supreme Court agreed. Once more, this was a 5-4 decision. Its impact will ripple throughout the nation as Christian groups will be under fire for being . . . well, Christian.

The decision shows how acceptance of homosexuality has infiltrated our society. Even more, it shows that there is a noose around the neck of the First Amendment’s right of free exercise of religion. Christians are now open to penalties for practicing their faith.

As I’ve said before, the worst part of all this is the undeniable fact that, to some extent, we now live under an oligarchy. Five people can determine the direction of our society. The judiciary has become a little god. This does not bode well for the future.